affiliate_partnerize-advertiser_verify_auth

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calls a minimal authenticated endpoint, returns a structured response ({ok:true, identity?} or {ok:false, reason}), and implies non-mutating behavior through 'verify'. This gives a clear behavioral profile, though it doesn't explicitly state side-effect freeness or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage timing and return values. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, when to use, return shape, and a related tool, which is good for a minimal verification tool. However, the total omission of the sole 'brand' parameter leaves a significant gap: the agent cannot invoke the tool correctly without understanding what 'brand' means. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the inline return description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single required parameter 'brand' is completely unexplained in both the description and the schema (schema coverage 0%). The description does not mention 'brand' at all, so an agent has no basis to know what values are valid or what the parameter refers to, which is a critical gap for a tool with only one parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Verify' and clearly identifies the resource as 'configured credentials for Partnerize (Advertiser)'. It also explains the method ('calling a minimal authenticated endpoint') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the network and advertiser variant, which is reinforced by the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: at the start of a session, after rotating keys, or when another operation returns an auth error. It also suggests pairing with affiliate_run_diagnostic for a full health check, which serves as an alternative/companion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this over the non-advertiser sibling affiliate_partnerize_verify_auth.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.